Comments from Rule 234 Amendment Workshop, August 5, 2010

Issue 1: Aerosols. Add cleaning solvents to the aerosol definition. Aerosols are used for bug, tar, and

sap cleaning that can not meet the 350 g/l limit. These need to be exempt.

Response: Aerosols used for surface cleaning and preparation are covered under Rule 240, and not 

directly covered under Rule 234. Rule 240 provides an exemption for cleaning and prep aerosols, 

with a provision limiting the use to 160 ounces/day for those with VOC content greater than 50 g/l.

Issue 2: Metallics. Is this category needed ? If so, add “may also include mylar, plastics, and other 

minerals”. Also, why does the definition include a requirement to contain more than 5 g/l of metallic ?

Response: The metallics definition has been deleted from the rule as it is not required for rule 

compliance.

Issue 3: Primer/sealer. Add to definition to include use for “promote adhesion to the substrate”. 

Primer/sealers are sometimes formulated to include adhesion promoter additives.

Response: To be consistent with the SCM, no change has been made. Products that are used 

specifically for adhesion promotion need to meet the adhesion category limit. If the primer/sealer is 

manufactured and intended for use to meet the primer/sealer definition, but at the same time includes 

adhesion promotion benefits, and as such could meet the definition of two categories, the product 

needs to meet the limit for the most restrictive category (which happens to be the primer/sealer).

Issue 4: Reducer. Change definition to “Products used to thin a coating”.

Response: Made change as requested.

Issue 5: Solvent. Add to the name “cleaning”.

Response: To be consistent with the SCM, we are retaining the title without the suggested addition of 

“cleaning”. This is because solvent can be used for coating thinning, and the existing definition 

specifically mentions cleaning.

Issue 6: Spot repair. Is this definition needed ? If so, change requirement from 1 sq ft to for example 

20% of the vehicle surface area.

Response: To be consistent with the SCM, we are not changing the definition. The spot definition is 

used for the definition of the “uniform finish coating” category. The definition is not changed to a 

percentage of total vehicle surface area because this could allow very large areas for vehicles with 

large surface areas.

Issue 7: Section 305. Separate out (put in different numbered sections) gun cleaning requirements from 

surface cleaning requirements.

Response: The gun cleaning requirements are included in Subsection 305.3, separate from the other 

surface cleaning and solvent storage and handling requirements in the other subsections of Section 

305.

Issue 8: Section 305.1 Get rid of requirement to dispose and store VOC-laden materials in “non-leaking 

and vapor tight” containers, instead characterize as “closed”. Does storage in a trash can with lid meet 

the intent of this requirement ?

Response: As suggested, the disposal and storage container requirements for VOC-laden materials 

has been changed to “closed”, as consistent with the SCM. It is preferred that containers be used 

with lids that form a tight and secure seal, such as those with screw-on or form fit lids. A “trash can”
with a well sealed lid would comply with this requirement; alternatively, a trash can with lid that has 

visible leaks where the lid forms a seal with the container would not comply with this requirement.

Issue 9: Section 305.3 Add allowance for cleaning of spray guns with solvents comprised solely of

exempt VOCs without an enclosed system.

Response: Made change as requested.

Issue 10: Section 403. Delete second sentence. Clarify that this applies to products that are delivered to 

the District. The Distributer should not be responsible if non-compliant products are sold outside the 

District, and then brought into the District and used ?

Response: No change is made. A distributer located outside of the District would not be directly 

responsible if he unknowingly sold a non-compliant product that was subsequently used in the 

District. Alternatively, a distributer would be responsible if he delivered for sale a non-compliant 

product into the District, or knowingly sold a non-compliant product that was clearly intended for use 

in the District.

Issue 11: Section 404. It is burdensome and unnecessary to include the requirement for information on 

the volume of exempts, weight of exempts, and density. Is this condition asking for the supplier to 

provide this information to the user when purchased, or to District on request ? Clarify this.

Response: We have clarified that the manufacturer or repackager may provide this information to the 

purchaser, at time of sale, in electronic or web media format.

Issue 12: Section 405. Not reasonable to include requirements for the VOC category on the label. Also 

need to add option of reporting VOC content in lb/gal instead of g/l.

Response: We have added that the VOC content can be provided in either lb/gal or g/l. Regarding 

the category, we have added that the category identification is only required on labels for products 

that have been manufactured after the effective date of the rule amendment.

Issue 13: Section 501.4 For purchase records, it is not always feasible to include the coating type, and 

have the records available on-site. Should require to supply them on request.

Response: We have clarified that coating type (category) information must be on-site and correlated 

with all individual products, and that purchase records may be stored off-site.

Issue 14: Section 503.4. Get rid of requirement to include “point of use” for each sale. Also, can the 

VOC content requirement be met by having information available at the shop, and does not need to be 

included in each separate sales transaction receipt ?

Response: We have eliminated the “point of use” requirement. Documentation of the product VOC 

content must be available on-site, and does not need to be included in each separate transaction 

receipt.

Issue 15: Section 507. Test Methods. Is the metallic method needed ? If so, it needs to be corrected to 

allow for characterization of other additives.

Response: We are eliminating the metallic test method as it is not required for rule compliance.

Issue 16: Rule should take effect six months from board approval.

Response: 
Issue 17: NESHAP MACT Rule will require all operations, regardless of size, to have a local operating 

permit.

Response: